Quote:
Originally Posted by unlurking
Re-read the article, then check the legal requirements again.
As I stated earlier, one party MUST be informed that their conversations are being recorded. Businesses that do so inform their employees in writing and 99% of the time require an employee to sign a statement that they have been notified of this fact. It is illegal to monitor conversations without either party being informed.
The article clearly states that Haley thinks his personal cell phone is being monitored. It also states that the Chiefs have denied that they are monitoring phone calls.
Obviously the Chiefs cannot legally record Haley's personal cell phone, and if the Chiefs denied they were recording office phones somebody would have claimed that they signed an ROB acknowledging the fact that their calls were being recorded.
EDIT:
I can see where I might have been unclear in the previous post you quoted. I should have stated explicitly in that post (as I did in follow ups), that it is is illegal to record conversations without at least one party consent. The comments about people "fearing" they were being recorded in the article means that they obviously were not. By law they would have to be informed of that fact. Since they didn't know if they were being recorded, it stands to reason that they were not. Unless you believe the Chiefs were willing to commit federal crimes.
|
I do not know the law, but I know my conversations on the work phone are recorded and I have never signed anything. We all just know it is recorded I guess, but there has never been paper work or an explanation of it. We can hear a beep periodically when we talk. Yes, the conversations have been pulled back up.